John, I said that out of frustration. I think he might have been trying to convey the idea that there is something that exists that is separate from vision and thought, that cannot be adequately described with language. A bit like:
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things" from Tao Te Ching (Classic text)
Once we start differentiating objects and naming them, the external world becomes somewhat understandable to our feeble senses and minds. Yet the categorization is based on our perception and likely inadequate to fully represent what is there. Then again he may have meant nothing of the sort as I have so far failed to find any agreement with Joe.